|
Right now in many jurisdictions it is a felony to threaten me because I am an agent of the government. This has not stopped Republicans or libertarians from trying to use the language of hate speech to get America to self destruct, consuming its public servants. For some reason aforementioned groups dont seem to understand that hate speech is not speech thr government doesnt like, its speech specifically that attempts to prosecute people for exisiting in ways they have no choice about. I choose to be a public servant and yet I also get special dispensation in the law because without it some people will attempt to terroize me. Likewise hate speech laws are not created in a vaccum, they exist because without them people will be afforded undue suffering. Once again we have an example of a false dichotomy, free speech and hate speech are not opposing polar nodes on an alignment chart and its only because the world is full of pedantic fuckwits who can't interalize The Golden Rule that we have to create such laws in the first place.
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 23:08 |
|
|
Geoff Peterson posted:Whose definition of Hate Speech are we codifying? The popular majority? quote:Don't get me wrong-I understand and agree with you that this topic tends to bring out the fishmech in people. It also tends to bring out Pollyanna ignorance for a vocal contingent of the opposite end. It's a complex issue. "Do unto others, and make it illegal to be a shithead" is as disingenuous and wrong as "Prohibition on any speech will become prohibition on all speech" No, its really not. One view acknowledges theres nuance to human behavior the other enables discrimination in economic transactions which until money is no longer free speech again is something America is at least trying very hard to politely ignore. Its also why independent of speech codification we've legislated gay marriage into tacit acceptance and made it illegal to racially profile housing applicants. As I implied, we have to have laws because there are pedant bad actors, you try to structure your government policy and laws to get the best most possible outcomes, not what you wish the world was; a great example of which is DADT, which itself was invoked because it was a compromise of acknowledging reality without having to afflict the comfortable with the burden that maybe their hate speech and bigotry was objectively wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:why should people have to accommodate verbally aggressive jackasses? why does their speech take president over anyone elses right to go about their business unmolested? My closet libertarian friend always intones to me that "People just want to be left alone and live their lives." and then argues to me that hate speech/crime laws are weird and unnatural and we shouldnt have them because everyone is equal. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:Yeah. Theres a reason the laws protecting government workers says threaten and not harass, you may all want to think a little bit harder about this.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:Yeah that's not possible. You just have to accept the fact that some people/positions are not going to be popular in society and catch any cases that cross the line into acute harassment. Trying to build a national hugbox is just going to explode in your face. You guys keep using that word harassment interchangeably with threaten. I'm telling you again this is not something you can do.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Being Christian is not a minority status and being a raving lunatic in public is the same regardless of content. Threating others existential existance with torment may need to be reexamined as far as what can be construed as a threat from whining bigots who just want to turn hate speech into a game of rules lawyering with the government DMs however. I also dont advocate for pre-emptive law in anticipation of problems yet to being identified to exist so it doesnt really matter if im engaged in deeply nuanced political science because I'm not going for any sort of alteration to the status quo.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
natetimm posted:You should see it as noteworthy because it's becoming the genesis for a new set of bad laws people are trying to push through. Online harassment and threats is quickly becoming the equivalent of terrorism for a new generation, with all the dumb and reactionary laws to protect people from it being proposed like before. It's going to become the new altar people demand their rights be sacrificed upon due to a culture of fear and panic being stirred up by the media and political agitators. You already have prominent sites eliminating discussion altogether and writers calling for stupidly strict enforcement and the stripping of immunity from online content providers in regards to what their users say. The internet is ethereal and this is just one of many bouts of naval gazing that will be required before we get the soft science of collective awareness figured out. Remember we're talking about a medium still younger than the average poster on this forum, most definitely so if you deliniate based on how the interactions on it are possible ( pre and post youtube for example)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Free speech has nothing to do with private entities hosting speech unless you're breitbart and have no sense of historical irony in trying to suggest there should be an internet website fairness docrtine. The theroy of the Democratic power of the internet is that there is unlimited venue for communication if you are reasonably competent at it. Corporate websites fealizing that letting people be rude to each other at the companies expense is not government oppreesion of free speech or losing anything of value to society. One could make a not totally insane arguement that intenet commenting as it has existed is why were in this ridiculous echo chamber mess of a political system right now RuanGacho fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Nov 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
*Newspaper posts an article about how scientists agree women can also make super hero popsicles with juice and a freezer* "Fuckin' SWJs!"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Look, you guy aren't the first group of people aggressively cheer the loss of your rights and privileges, you just have the distinction of having more information regarding it available to you than any other generation. The argument against comments sections is the same one against free speech i.e. "Some people will use it to do things I don't like". When the argument gets to the point where you would rather silence everyone for the sake of silencing those people, maybe you're too personally involved in hating the caricature of people you disagree with. Maybe you're allowing yourself to be manipulated into being a partisan tool. I've moderated goon communities and my take away is a completely egalitarian point that just because a venue is possible does not mean it should exist. If you want a broader example Facebook for sure increases the quantifiable " free speech" in the world but that doesn't mean it either benefits nor improves society. There's a reason why it has the rep it does. We as a society are not willing to address yet how free speech allows ISIS and legitimate political speech to exist. Is it twitter and youtube and facebooks moral responsibility to not censor speech or to only provide a venue for what they want. Reminder, the government is in no way involved in any of this.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
natetimm posted:I think once media companies reach a certain amount of control over the market where they run a near-monopoly and conspire with each other to maintain it, they should be subjected to the same types of laws that the government is subject to. Watching leftists tie themselves in a knot to suck corporate dick will never stop being amusing to me. I'm not a leftist I'm a robo socialist. Slanderer.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
[quote="Literally The Worst" post=""452194185"] lmao and what minority are you in natetimm [/quote] Apparently not leftists. Which is a telling turn of phrase in itself.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
natetimm posted:I think the basic human rights of individuals, including free speech, should trump the interests of institutions. Is Facebook a good thing?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Overall, yes. I know it's popular to hate on because everyone ends up adding some distant relative or friend from childhood and then having to deal with the fact that they are an idiot, but overall I think things like Facebook, and even Twitter, which I personally can't stand, do more good than bad. I would honestly like to ask what good you think either are doing because this past week I watched a sitting senator try to get people to trend something from c-span.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
Once something becomes political or religious in the US it is Sacred and cannot be violated. This is why I'm a Robo-Eisenhower-Socialist and Satan Lord.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
natetimm posted:No, it's just that the justification for writing them has to go beyond "this is good because we say so" and "this is bad because we say so". I laid out pretty early how hate speech laws are designed and what there purpose is, to imply that all sides belong at the table while advocating that the private table should be either chopped up or filled with unbagged dog poo poo for everyone's societal benefit is terrible at best. I warned about bullshit pedantry. Unlike with first past the post voting, the option of " Do Nothing" or "Provide No Support for" are reasonable positions. Private and public entities exist for a reason.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Its not about feelings its about public safety. Does anyone discriminate against you? I ask because its a surreal experience to have people call for your destruction, euthanasia and general mistreatment when they don't know you can hear them. Hate speech laws aren't to prevent political or religious speech they're to make sure someone doesn't die. It takes some willful density to twist that into government censorship. Is this what a free speech amendment nut looks like?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:gently caress the police, kill the rich, death to America, etc. Go nuts, just don't form a militia or klan rally over it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Good thing the feelings of rich white people and their stooges are less important than the rights of everyone else or chanting "gently caress the police!" might be a criminal speech rally. There is no war but class war.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
natetimm posted:The very root of that argument is that bad ideas should be banned from public discourse. Nevermind the fact that freedom of speech and public discourse is how many of these oppressed groups managed to engineer their upswing, let's neuter these tools as soon as we get the chance! Public threats and private website comments are not the same thing thanks everyone for playing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:"According to other articles, the parents moved their daughter to another school because of the bullying going on against her. Then the lovely children at school resorted to cyberbullying because their target was no longer readily available to them in person. The parents were trying to help her in every way they could." Oh look another crab person 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
Restrictions on speech exist. Why is that I wonder...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 23:08 |
|
|
natetimm posted:Hate speech laws aren't going to stop teens and kids from bullying each other. People die from malicious words, be it online or the more traditional and acceptable beatings or being dragged behind a truck. We have laws that say don't do that. If you're a reasonable person you just shrug and say "yeah ok, that's not gunna matter to how I live my life"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 00:49
|
|